The Appointment Process: How Anxious Should We Be, Actually?

Now begins that season in the United Methodist year when churches around the US begin wishing…they were just like their Lutheran or Presbyterian—or better yet—independent church brother and sisters down the street. Why, you ask? Because darn it, this waiting to know who our pastor is going to be and not being able to control it is difficult. Even maddening. And certainly disconcerting. How can someone—even if they are a bishop—who isn’t in our church every week possibly know what sort of pastor we want or need? What if they mess this up royally? And on top of that, how can they tell us what we have to pay that pastor, how we have to treat them, and how much authority that pastor has (or doesn’t have) over us?

Meanwhile, UM clergy are not immune from this season of panic and anxiety. Even the staunchest of United Methodist pastors can be brought to their knees this time of year with doubts about whether they made the right choice entering a denomination where so much of their fate is seemingly out of their control. What if no one heeds their requests for consideration for a spouse’s work, or a parent’s need for care? They know they are guaranteed a job, but what if it is a horrible one? What if they are exiled to…(we don’t name those places anymore)?

This season, this early-in-the-appointment-season time, can seem like sitting in the waiting room before seeing the dentist, knowing that at least some of our anxiety is simply about having to WAIT. We don’t wait well. We don’t give over control terribly well, either.

The truth is, we know that everyone involved in this process are human, and imperfect at that. We know the horror stories. Perhaps we’ve even experienced them. Those stories are real, and their consequences are painful to recall. If you’ve ever had opportunity to minister to and with people whose churches have fallen apart in the wake of a poorly-conceived appointment or a pastor struggling under the weight of an appointment that is not a good fit, you know this. If you’ve ever counted yourself in one of those groups, you SURELY know this.

The United Methodist practice of an itinerant clergy goes back to the very beginning of the Methodist story. A combination of many factors, including a church leadership made up of laity who literally didn’t have enough material for more than a certain number of sermons (and thus had to be moved before they ran out of material—this never happens today J), a somewhat domineering church founder (John Wesley has his moments…often), and an emphasis on the leadership of laity within the structures of the church made this a very practical solution. In the early years of Methodism in this country, preachers were rotated, having a maximum of two years on a given circuit. As time passed, this maximum was increased then finally done away with. Today, a church may have a given pastor for a year or for 20 years. Average tenures are increasing, and despite what we might think, don’t seem to average much different than our congregationally-structured brothers and sisters.

The itinerancy and appointment process has many benefits for local churches. Clergy recruitment, training, evaluation and assignment is done and paid for through the annual conference (at least part of seminary expenses, at least, for those who get far enough in the process in time). Yes, clergy have guaranteed appointment, but churches also are guaranteed to, you guessed it, get assigned a pastor. If you question how big of a deal this is, ask a church which has been searching for a new pastor for over a year. The bishop and cabinet are able to look at an entire pool of pastors at one time. Often, churches receive pastors they would never have been attractive enough to draw. Minimum salaries give standardization which allows pastors to move between churches, hopefully without financial penalty (and bitterness). Established standards for benefits and upper-end salary practices do remove some say from the congregation, but they also significantly diminish the awkward position of having to quibble with your pastor about their salary—especially when they are often running a church akin to a small business. Conference leaders are available as resources to navigate the pastor-congregation relationship, sometimes being able to handle difficult situations that congregational churches would have to tough it through on their own.

At the same time, there is need for some clarity about how the process works, and how input is received and accounted for. One of my fundamental beliefs about people is that withholding information (either on purpose or because you lack a good method for disseminating that information) makes people paranoid. No one likes to be told, “Just do what we say.” There is danger that the appointment process can be like that. It has a lot to do with how we present and explain things. Churches who do not regularly receive new pastors are in particular need of help understanding the process—chances are a small church with turnover every 3-4 years has a much better understanding of the process than a larger church which likely experiences such transition every 10+ years—if for no other reason than leadership turnover and loss of institutional memory.

I believe, then, that giving answers, being open to suggestions, and understanding that most of the people in our pews not only fail to understand how the process works, but why we do it the way we do.

One of the things that I really value about the appointment process is the way it empowers (or ought to) the lay people. Congregations DO have a voice, and the better we can explain how this is actually done, the more they will trust the process. In addition, while a pastoral transition can be disruptive, the degree of that disruption often has more to do with the involvement and leadership of the laity than the leadership of the clergy.

Now don’t get me wrong, a pastor can royally mess up a church. I’ve seen it, and it ain’t pretty. But a congregation can also do a lot to dictate how that process happens. And a willingness to be honest about how things are going can help address and change the situation early. One of the challenges is our infinite hope that things will just get better with time. Hint: they rarely do.

On the flip side, it is of course important for conferences—particularly bishops and cabinets—to be responsive to needs and challenges in congregations. Each year, we all have a formal opportunity to evaluate how the pastor-congregation relationship is going. It is very important that this is done truthfully. Nothing is sadder than a situation that is way far gone by the time a district superintendent hears about it. Well, perhaps the only thing sadder is a far-gone situation the DS knew about but avoided dealing with. We ALL have a responsibility to this process.

Here’s the thing: for all the anxieties and questions and even, yes, distrust this season brings, the United Methodist Church has grown with a itinerancy and appointment process. In fact, to be honest, it’s greatest growth happened precisely when pastors moved every 2 or 4 years and appointment was quite arbitrarily. I’m not arguing for a return to that—heck, have you seen what the life span was for a pastor back then? No, thank you!

It is to say, however, that over the course of time, this process has worked. And worked well. Our culture and society has changed, and the process has needed to change with it. Politics and at times odd dynamics shape the process, but at all times, the Holy Spirit is also at work.

This is a time of year for United Methodists when it is easy to dwell in the worst case scenarios. Believe, I know. But life does not consist of worst case scenarios, and God is able to bring good out of any situation. Yes, some situations are painful, but others are wonderfully, surprisingly incredible. Let us pray that this season is just that…for all of us!